PDA

View Full Version : Runefang Vs Pendant of Khaeleth



Sir Spoon 88
12-01-2009, 13:40
Just a quick question to pose...

What is the ward save for a model carrying the Pendant of Khaeleth against a hit from a runefang or any other auto wounding attack? As the hit is resolved without a strength value. The wording for Khaeleth specifically says the strength of the attack and not of the attacking model which is why i am wondering the effects.

Regards,
<---

EvC
12-01-2009, 13:47
Probably should be considered S4. Wording may be unclear, but context indicates that it should count as an S4 wound with no armour save (Also useful for chopping up Bretonnians).

narrativium
12-01-2009, 13:57
The Pendant doesn't protect at all against attacks which don't have a Strength value. This includes, for example, Infernal Gateway and certain Giant attacks.

Gazak Blacktoof
12-01-2009, 14:54
A runefang will hit with the strength of the character wielding it but will automatically wound.

Normally this means that a hit with a runefang is at strength 4, so can be saved on the roll of a 4 or less using the pendant.

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 19:10
However skaven Globadiers would always autowound if you get the 4+, as you specificlaly cannot use the strength of the model.

Very useful - no armour and no ward :D

Kalandros
12-01-2009, 20:07
Runefang and the Orc version of Runefang both use the STrength of its wielder, because without the "no armor save" being added, you'd modify the armour according to the S of the character, so yes, S4 vs Pendant.

And yes, Globadiers and Plague Censor Bearers (T Test) ignore armor AND the pendant as they have no S value attached to them.

Goruax
12-01-2009, 20:17
But with the auto-wound and no armour, where does the Strength come into it at all?
Unless there's a situation where the Runefang is nulified (Runeshield, Vaul's Unmaking) then the user's Strength plays no part in the combat at all.

So how can you apply the Strength?
The Hit caused has no Strength, because it does not require it at any stage.

Jack of Blades
12-01-2009, 20:20
But with the auto-wound and no armour, where does the Strength come into it at all?
Unless there's a situation where the Runefang is nulified (Runeshield, Vaul's Unmaking) then the user's Strength plays no part in the combat at all.

So how can you apply the Strength?
The Hit caused has no Strength, because it does not require it at any stage.

I agree with this. You can't base it being S4 vs Pendant on removing part of the item's ruling.

Neckutter
12-01-2009, 20:21
the hit comes from the wielder= use the S of the wielder. even though the S is irrelevant it still originates from the S4 model in HtH

@ goruax about time for an update. gimme your chaos warriors :P

Bac5665
12-01-2009, 20:29
the hit comes from the wielder= use the S of the wielder. even though the S is irrelevant it still originates from the S4 model in HtH



This!!

The attack has a strength value, it just doesn't have to roll to wound. All the item does is let you skip the roll to wound step, it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the attack. Poison Wind Globadeers have a special ranged attack. Runefang simply modifies a normal attack, and the normal attack has a S value.

sulla
12-01-2009, 21:46
A runefang will hit with the strength of the character wielding it but will automatically wound.

Normally this means that a hit with a runefang is at strength 4, so can be saved on the roll of a 4 or less using the pendant.


Why? Doesn't it wound automatically and give no armour saves? If so, it has no strength value.

Sounds like it should completely bypass the pendant to me.

Aglemar
12-01-2009, 22:02
Think of this for an example if it helps you understand.

A creature has strength 7 and an auto wound only weapon (no armor save negation). He strikes a knight with a 2+ armor save. Would the knight have a -4 armor modifier, as you would normally, or would he take the save at 2+ because the strength doesn't apply?

The strength of the attack is still there even if it isn't used when rolling to wound.

Condottiere
12-01-2009, 22:04
Why? Doesn't it wound automatically and give no armour saves? If so, it has no strength value.

Sounds like it should completely bypass the pendant to me.Seems to be true.

Can anyone lend me a Runefang?

Aurellis
12-01-2009, 22:04
Think of this for an example if it helps you understand.

A creature has strength 7 and an auto wound only weapon (no armor save negation). He strikes a knight with a 2+ armor save. Would the knight have a -4 armor modifier, as you would normally, or would he take the save at 2+ because the strength doesn't apply?

The strength of the attack is still there even if it isn't used when rolling to wound.

This is the perfect view of the way to look at this.

Gazak Blacktoof
12-01-2009, 22:32
Why? Doesn't it wound automatically and give no armour saves? If so, it has no strength value.

Sounds like it should completely bypass the pendant to me.

Why doesn't it have a strength value?

It wounds automatically, this doesn't mean it has no strength value. It ignores armour, that doesn't mean it has no associated strength value.

Why would you assume that by combining these two properties you get an attack with no defined strength value?

Play it as you wish but expect some raised eyebrows >:eyebrows:

Nurgling Chieftain
13-01-2009, 00:55
The attack has a given strength value. The fact that this value is used neither to-wound nor for armour saves does not change nor remove the associated strength value.

I think it somewhat ironic that the claim "it isn't used and so therefore doesn't exist" argument falls apart completely at the very subject of the thread. It is used under these circumstances, and therefore Goruax's claim is utterly incorrect on the face of it.

Goruax
13-01-2009, 01:55
What I was meaning is that the Strength of the attack is bypassed completely by the Runefang and is not factored into the Hit.

Process;
Roll To-Hit - As normal with the Runefang, compare WS

Roll To-Wound - Skipped, since the Runefang auto-wounds. Would normally compare Attacker's S vs Defender's T. No S value is compared.

Roll Armour Save - Normally the S value is used to modify the AS. No S value is used, since no AS is allowed.

Roll Ward Save - Normally a fixed value. Pendant uses S value of attack. No S value has been used in the process until now, but no S value has been defined by the previous steps.

However, I do agree that the Pendant grants a save, it almost suggests it is negated because no S value is used until the Pendant itself, at which point the Hit had no defined Strength.

Kalandros
13-01-2009, 02:36
So by the flawed logic of "it autowoudns so it has no strength" then the Daemons of Chaos S4 and S5 poisons, have no S value and thus modify armor by 0, while their normal S4 and S5 attacks that do not autowound from poison hit will modify armor.

Yeah, please stop trying to find ways to circumvent the Pendant of Kaeleth, avoid the Dreadlord or Supreme Sorceress if you'Re fairly certain the Pendant is there - use CR, use psychology.

Many armies have ways to skip it - Warriors of Chaos, nurgle spell among others.

Lord Dan
13-01-2009, 02:50
This all sounds more anti-pendant than anything else. I have the sinking suspicion that if the original question was: "How do you determine armor saves for auto-wounding weapons?" people would have unanimously replied: "With the strength of the attacking model, of course!"

The attack has an associated S value. Simply because it isn't used prior to calculating the roll for the pendant doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

High Loremaster
13-01-2009, 03:01
I'd say it still uses the Strength value of 4. The Pendant would work as normal.

Master Stark
13-01-2009, 04:18
This is the perfect view of the way to look at this.

Indeed. The save would be 2+, not 4+, as the creature with S7 would be forgoing his extreme strength in favour of using the S- auto wounding weapon.

Chiungalla
13-01-2009, 04:36
There is no way coming from the point that a hit wounds automaticly getting to the point where it hasn't any strengh, unless you add very very very much wishful thinking.

That you do not use the strengh in this case, doesn't mean it's not there.
It's still a strengh-what-soever-attack.

And there is no even slightly hint in the rules for the point of view, that if you don't role to wound, the attack has no strengh value.

The runefang does not bypass the strengh completly, but only does not need it for the to wound roll. That's all.

Master Stark
13-01-2009, 05:11
There is no way coming from the point that a hit wounds automaticly getting to the point where it hasn't any strengh, unless you add very very very much wishful thinking.

The model is not using his strength value.

He uses the weapons special ability to inflict the wound.

Chiungalla
13-01-2009, 05:24
Yes, but still a attack from a close combat weapon has the strengh of the wearer, unless there is a rule contradicting this.

There is no rule that says there is no strengh.
It is only not used for the to wound roll, since it is not roled at all.

There is no rule that says, there is no strengh with this attack.

Master Stark
13-01-2009, 05:45
Yes, but still a attack from a close combat weapon has the strengh of the wearer

Really?

I can't find that rule in the book, could you give me a page reference?

Chiungalla
13-01-2009, 05:57
Other question for you, if you don't play it that way, which strengh do attacks with a magic weapon have without stating the strengh of the attack in the special rules of the weapon?

Lord Dan
13-01-2009, 06:11
Holy crap. Neckutter just beat Iron Man in a battle of wits.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

Goruax
13-01-2009, 06:53
Wow, that's kinda heated isn't it? :p

Anyway, we all know the process for Poisoned Attacks (which does factor in the Strength) but is there a ruling for auto-wounding weapons?
Or is Poison the only thing we have to go off?

*Devil's Advocating, just before anyone shouts at me :)

Gazak Blacktoof
13-01-2009, 09:25
The process is identical to that used for non-auto wounding weapons except they wound automatically.;)

You wont find a separate process laid out because there isn't one.

nosferatu1001
13-01-2009, 11:45
Treat it exactly the same as Poison - strength is that of the wielder plus any bonuses from the weapon.

Dark_Mage99
13-01-2009, 11:50
Runefang does have a strength value - the strength of the wielder.

Templar_Victorious
13-01-2009, 12:00
Why not simply assigne the needed strength to nullify the target creatures armour?
I:e AS6+ = S4
AS 5+ = S5
etc

But in all fairness, it should be the strength of the wielder that's taken into account, as per pg 56 rules. This does allow modifiers, such as halberds, great weapons (mundane) and/or magic weapons, correct?

Cambion Daystar
13-01-2009, 12:14
I feel soo much hate.
Seems a lot of people hate the pendant very bad.
I also say it is S4 btw.

Lycannus
13-01-2009, 12:24
I agree, strength of the weilder

Baragash
13-01-2009, 12:55
Devil's Advocating here:
A lot of auto-wound weapons include the phrase "saves are modified by the strength of the bearer".
If strength was carried through normally, why include it?

The page 56 quote doesn't strictly apply to everything, otherwise weapons with a fixed strength (ie those that don't "add to the bearer's") wouldn't work.

Shamfrit
13-01-2009, 13:04
It ignores armour saves anyway, so you're left with a 5+ ward and regen to get through...

(I.e - str 4 attack.)

Gazak Blacktoof
13-01-2009, 13:32
Devil's Advocating here:
A lot of auto-wound weapons include the phrase "saves are modified by the strength of the bearer".
If strength was carried through normally, why include it?

To make the rules as clear and unambiguous as possible which is how rules should be written.

Sifal
13-01-2009, 14:41
It is crazy to randomly assume a runefand would not allow a pendant of khaeleth save by saying it doesn't have a strength value. by the same broken logic someone could say that seeing as it auto wounds and doesn't allow saves you might as well assume that it is eqiuvalent str 10 and the pendant grants a 2+ ward. BOTH these statements are stupid and don't apply.

Weapons that only have the autowound part of the rule still use str to modify armour save and poison attacks attacks still use str vs armour save. weapons that only have the don't allow armour save rule use str to determine the to wound roll. killing blow vs the pendant still allows the DE player to make a ward save and even though it auto kills and takes all wounds the str is still used to modify the reverse ward.

take this as another example. the orc runefang is wielded by boss with str 5 and strikes knights of the realm who have the blessing of the lady. he hits a few times and then auto wounds and doesn't allow armour saves. do the knights get basic 6+ ward or 5+ because the attack is str 5 or over? it is clearly the 5+ ward.

Brimstone
13-01-2009, 14:46
Holy crap. Neckutter just beat Iron Man in a battle of wits.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

And person with a gold star trumps all, seriously cut it out or I'll do more than just hand out warnings.

The Warseer Inquisition

Sir Spoon 88
13-01-2009, 15:12
Im prolly gonna take away that the hit is S4 or that of the character. What i get from all the arguments is that the actual roll to wound is independant of the strength of the hit. Yes the strength is used in calculating whether a normal attack wounds or not, but the weapon is so mighty that it by passes that. Thanks for the info.

There's always 'Law of Gold' and 'Creeping Death' and S3 Wizards with Van Horstmann's.

LONG LIVE THE EMPORER!!

Von Wibble
13-01-2009, 21:11
Most auto wound (or fixed wound for that matter) weapons state in their rules that armour saves are modified by the strength of the bearer. High Elf Sword of Hoeth and Foe Bane for example.

The only reason the Runefang doesn't is that since S is normally only used for armour save modification and nothing else. The Pendant therefore imo saves on 4-. And yes, imo that applies to the Sword of Fate also :)

Da_Greeniest
13-01-2009, 23:00
The Pendant of Khaleth was also concieved long after the Empire Army Book was released.

And if I were to wager a guess, I would say that the two books were written by two different authors.

Anyone that is looking to exploit yet another one of GW's mishaps, is a no good git, and exactly the reason why no one enjoys playing with you.

Jack of Blades
13-01-2009, 23:12
Anyone that is looking to exploit yet another one of GW's mishaps, is a no good git, and exactly the reason why no one enjoys playing with you.

Exploit? yeah, because it's not like the pendant doesn't deserve a save against a 100 point weapon carried by a mere human. As if it wasn't already undercosted enough? I mean I agree with both sides of this argument, but I'd side with the one that has the Runefang negate the Pendant, because it just doesn't feel right to let a 35 point no-brainer of an item get a save against a 100 point weapon carried by a mere human if the case is arguable.

It's basically like the Obsidian Armour (IIRC it negates magic weapons) for Bloodthirsters. Sure, but do you really need to negate one of the few things that have a shot at killing you and deserve that chance as well?

Delmont
13-01-2009, 23:30
Uh.... Yes? I don't think there is any mishap here, nor dodgy wording. Sure the attack auto wounds and allows no armor saves but it doesn't take away the guy's strength. The pendant should work.

Jack, by that reasoning no ward save should work because most cost about 35 points and can negate the 100 point weapons. If you really want to kill the guy smack him with the blade of realities. That will f him up (he's gotta fail a ld sometime).

Jack of Blades
13-01-2009, 23:34
Jack, by that reasoning no ward save should work because most cost about 35 points and can negate the 100 point weapons. If you really want to kill the guy smack him with the blade of realities. That will f him up (he's gotta fail a ld sometime).

Don't hit me with the infamous ''by that logic'' please. It's the best sentence in the world for taking something out of context and making it appear as a legitimate argument. Anyway, my point is that if your Empire opponent claims that his Runefang bypasses your Pendant, it's an option to be a little courteous and let it. Not for everyone, but I would let it bypass. Honestly, this thing doesn't need more advantages than it already has, I think we can all agree on that no?

Sifal
14-01-2009, 00:02
come to think of it i don't know a single empire player (and i know lots) that would take a runefang in 2000pts or less. most people are all about arch lector, alter and van horstmans.

Lord Dan
14-01-2009, 00:31
because it just doesn't feel right to let a 35 point no-brainer of an item get a save against a 100 point weapon carried by a mere human if the case is arguable.

That was my fear. "What doesn't feel right" should have nothing to do with a rule's dispute, especially if it's fuelled by frustration. Sure, the pendant is undercosted. That doesn't mean that an item that costs more automatically beats it.

Condottiere
14-01-2009, 07:48
My believe is that the frustration stems from multiple instances, not just a single item or unit. But you can hardly blame a player from taking a legal item and using it in a legitimate way.

Kalandros
14-01-2009, 22:54
That was my fear. "What doesn't feel right" should have nothing to do with a rule's dispute, especially if it's fuelled by frustration. Sure, the pendant is undercosted. That doesn't mean that an item that costs more automatically beats it.

Yeah, just take Ring of Hotek vs Teclis/Book of Hoeth for exemple.. oh hey its in the dark elf book as well! ;D

Goruax
14-01-2009, 23:31
Is it too much to ask for the Pendant to have one weakness? :p

Anyway, I do agree, however, that the Strength of the wielder is still used.
Unfortunately.

Aurellis
14-01-2009, 23:45
Is it too much to ask for the Pendant to have one weakness? :p


Low-strength attacks... as mentioned everywhere and by thousands of Skaven players ;)

Lordmonkey
15-01-2009, 00:16
Poisoned attacks wounds automatically on the roll of a 6, but the actual strength of the attack is used to determine any save modifiers. I would assume that this would work in the same way...

Aurellis
15-01-2009, 01:11
Poisoned attacks wounds automatically on the roll of a 6, but the actual strength of the attack is used to determine any save modifiers. I would assume that this would work in the same way...

Correct. Any attack, such as Poison and Killing Blow, that doesn't mention a Strength value always uses the base strength of the model when dealing with a situation such as this.

TheDarkDaff
15-01-2009, 01:25
Correct. Any attack, such as Poison and Killing Blow, that doesn't mention a Strength value always uses the base strength of the model when dealing with a situation such as this.

plusany weapon bonuses like Great Weapon +2 S.

Delmont
15-01-2009, 02:07
Don't hit me with the infamous ''by that logic'' please. It's the best sentence in the world for taking something out of context and making it appear as a legitimate argument.

Actually its a way to show how silly the original argument was. I understand that people do not like the pendant, I really do. It can be a very frustrating item to deal with, but every army has at least one item that is hard to deal with. The fact that it is X points and can grant what is essentially a 3+ ward save v the runefang does not change the rules on how strength and attacks work. It does not negate the runefang, it just provides some protection against it, much like a ward save does.